SD 

.Kti 





Pass ^HAI 

Book .Akfa 



61st Congress, ) SENATE. ( Document 

2d Session. f 1 No. 650. 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 



Mr. Hughes presented the following 

ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE JOINT SESSION OF THE COLO- 
RADO LEGISLATURE, MARCH, 1909, BY HON. E. M. AMMONS, 
RELATIVE TO THE RIGHTS IN AND USES OF FOREST RESER- 
VATIONS. 



June 25, 1910 — Ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Ammons. Mi*. President, members of the general assembly, and 
ladies and gentlemen, on the matter of the preservation of the forests 
there is no dispute between the Forest Service and myself. There is 
no dispute between any two good citizens of this country. The 
question as to whether or not the system of control that has been put 
over these reserves is a wise way in which to administer the forest 
lands of this country is where the difference of opinion arises. 

Mr. Pinchot is hi favor of the present policy. He has helped to 
build it. Long before he came into possession of it, according to his 
reports, about ten years ago, I find that he was working out the plans, 
the working plans for the control of these forest reserves. So that 
we may naturally suppose in addition to what he says that he is in 
favor of that system of control. I am opposed to it for a good many 
reasons, and I will try to explain some of them to you. You will 
notice from what he has said to you to-night that he talks of this 
system of government as being permanent. In other words, as we 
have been told from the beginning this policy has come to stay. 

He tells you that he will listen to complaints; that he wants to 
hear them, and that when they come to him he will give them the 
most careful attention and consideration; that he will try to adjust 
them, and that he will do this with justice. I believe that is true. 
But he does not give the question as to whether these complaints are 
caused by a faulty system or not, any consideration whatever; he 
believes his system is correct. Now, my friends, this is where the 
issue lies, and it reminds me of the sheriff, who, having read the 
death warrant to the prisoner, added with much deference: "I will 
try to make the details as comfortable as possible." 

In what I shall have to say to-night, I mean nothing personal 
against anyone. I want that understood. But I am going to 
criticise this service, not because of the men who are out here in the 
West trying to put it into effect, but because of the principle under- 
lying it, and because it is a system under which I firmly believe 
Mr. Pinchot could not give good administration however hard he 



9 »y 
*^ 

2 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

might try. I am going to give a few illustrations during my talk 
to-night, not as isolated cases, not for the importance of the in- 
stances themselves, but because they illustrate what is happening 
under this system. As many of you know, I am not able to read 
myself, being a Democrat perhaps; so that I will have to ask Mr. 
Eddy here, when I want a passage read, to read it for me. 

Now, my friends, I am going to take up a few matters that have 
been referred to by Mr. Pinchot. He says that they — he and his 
followers — want homesteaders here on these reserves; that they 
want the home builder and the home seeker; that they are encour- 
aging them. Let us see about that. Let us see how practical the 
effect of his system is in this matter. They have a law, he says, that 
makes settlement possible. The Congressmen and Senators down 
in Washington from some of the Eastern States say homesteaders 
are free to come into the reserves. I have been reading the speeches 
made the last three or four weeks in support of appropriations, and 
they claim that homesteaders can go into the reserves and stay 
without hindrance. A like assertion is made in the documents 
sent out. 

I want to call your attention to what the law is. It has been 
advertised in our own press and the press all over the country, and 
I will ask Mr. Eddy to read just those material portions relating to 
settlement. 

Under the act of June 11, 1906— 

The Secretary of Agriculture may, in his discretion, and he is hereby, authorized 
upon application or otherwise, to examine and ascertain as to the location and to the 
extent of the lands within the permanent or temporary forest reserves which are 
chiefly valuable for agriculture and which, in his opinion, may be occupied for agri- 
cultural purposes without injury to the Forest Service and which are not needed 
for public purposes. * * * That nothing herein contained shall be held to 
authorize any future settlement of any lands within the forest reserves until such lands 
have been opened to settlement as provided in this act. 

Now, ladies and gentlemen, just notice the reading of that act. 
Can you find in it — and that is the material portion of it — one single 
right for any man to make settlement on a homestead, except at the 
pleasure of the service ? Now, you have it. There is the plain 
reading of the law. No man can deny it, and yet that is the law 
advertised all over this country as the one under which homesteaders 
may locate unhindered in the reservations. Notice the reading of it. 
"The Secretary of Agriculture," meaning for all practical purposes 
the Forest Service, may in his discretion do as he pleases; do these 
things for John Smith or anybody else; allow him to go into the 
reserves and locate. But John Smith may go there only at the 
pleasure of the service. Section 5 doesn't say "may" or "in his 
discretion," but it says that "no future settlement of these lands shall 
be made except under the provisions of this act." There is the plain 
law of it. Did you get that impression from what you have been told ? 
Did you get it from what Mr. Pinchot has said here to-night ? Here 
you have the law itself, and everybody in this State ought to read it. 
The Secretary of the Interior has no discretion in the matter. After 
these lands are listed, if the Secretary of the Interior is requested to 
open them, then he has no discretion and must do it; but he can't do 
it without this request. Now, my friends, that is something that you 
can not get away from. 

... j 910 



I 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 3 

What is the actual operation ? There is a case I want to mention. 
Perhaps you have read it. I am using this as a practical illustration 
of the workings of this system. Over near the town of Newcastle a 
man named Porter applied for a homestead September 10, 1906. It 
was February, 1908, before he got a reply as to whether he could 
take that land, and then what did they say? They said it was 
chiefly valuable for grazing; insisted it was very high, being at an 
altitude of about 8,000 feet; and wasn't, in the opinion of the service, 
fit for cultivation. They turned him down ; wouldn't let him have the 
land. He had waited thereover sixteen months to find out whether 
he could take that land or not. That is one instance. Here is an- 
other: Mr. Pinchot says, "We want home builders." Over there 
on the western slope is a recent case which illustrates the system that 
has grown up under this service. 

Before the establishment of the reservation a man by the name of 
Mitchell took up a desert claim; put water on it; made a home there 
for his wife and his children; proved up on it; and something over two 
years ago got his final certificate. Then the Forest Service came in, 
protested that claim, refused to permit a patent on that land, and 
to-day it is held as headquarters for some of those rangers. What 
do you think of that ? They said the settler could not make a living 
there, but he was making one. Anyhow, is that a good reason for 
denying him the land so long as he was honestly endeavoring to 
improve it? He had made his home there. And this is not all 
they did. He had a crop growing when he got this decision. They 
permitted him to remain to get his crop, but they rented the place 
to him — his own buildings, his own crop, his own property — until 
he could get that crop off and then compelled him to move off the 
land. Is that the way to encourage home seekers? And I want to 
say right here and now that I am willing to contribute my share of 
the funds, if it is necessary, to carry that case to the Supreme Court 
of the United States and find out whether this Forest Service has a 
right to do such things as this. 

A similar case to this I brought to the attention of one of the 
leading constitutional lawyers of the State, and he said, "They can't 
do that. We can get that patent." And I said, "Who is going to 
pay for it? That fellow hasn't any money. He is just as helpless as 
a babe. He has got to take what is handed to him." My friends, 
do you believe that is encouraging settlement ? 

Let me call your attention to something else. There have been 
numerous cases where men have applied for homesteads and been 
turned down on the ground of what I call "ranger-steads." Last 
year some three hundred and fifty homesteads were allowed on these 
reserves. At the same time there were more than 1,600 ranger- 
steads allowed. I am going to take their own figures — 1,675 of these 
ranger headquarters were withdrawn. The homesteaders werelim- 
ited to ] 60 acres each.. Will anybody tell me how many acres are 
contained in these ranger-steads ? I hope Mr. Pinchot will explain 
that, because I would like to have this information myself. Four 
times as many headquarters set aside for these rangers as there were 
homesteads granted! Is that encouraging people to come and make 
homes ? And there has been homestead after homestead refused to 
make way for these ranger headquarters, notwithstanding the fact 
there were already several times as many headquarters as there were 



4 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

rangers. I could cite more instances of that kind, but have given 
enough to illustrate. 

As to this question of mining. We are told here to-night the serv- 
ice does not interfere with mining and prospecting, that it has noth- 
ing whatever to do with the validity of a mining claim. You have 
heard what Mr. Pinchot has just said. We have also Mr. Pinchot's 
letter on this subject, and I am going to ask Mr. Eddy to read a 
clause of that letter, published broadcast throughout this State. It 
was written to the Denver Post and copied in many other papers. 

Under date of October 24, 1908, in a letter signed by Mr. Pinchot, 
occurs this extract: 

The rules and regulations of the Forest Service do not interfere with the right to 
prospect, locate, and develop mineral claims. The fact is, the regulations of the 
Forest Service have nothing whatever to do with the validity of a mining claim. 

Ladies and gentlemen, notice the reading of that extract. What 
inference do you get from it? It says definitely that there is no 
interference with the validity of a mining claim. I will ask Mr. 
Eddy to read a notice of protest from the land office. 

Leadville, August 11, 1908. 
M. R. Slitka, Breckenridge, Colo. 

By authority of the General Land Office, August 6, 1908. You are hereby notified 
that a forest officer has filed the following charge against the validity of your mining 

location for the Victor No. 2 lode, Pollock district, , on the following charges, to 

wit. * * * You are notified that if you fail to file in this office within thirty days from 
date, a written or printed answer under oath, denying each of said charges, or showing 
the state of facts rendering said charges material, and applying for a hearing to deter- 
mine the truth of said charges, or if you fail to appear at the hearing applied for, said 
above entry will be rejected and void and entry will be canceled. 

George A. Custer. 

There is an official letter from the land office, showing that the 
Forest Service brought charges against the validity of that claim. 
I am not going into that case, however, but I want to call your atten- 
tion to one thing in the rules, and that is this : That the forest officer 
who makes the charges against the validity of that claim does not 
swear to it. He does not have to make an affidavit, but the poor 
devil who has to defend it must make an affidavit. And let me call 
your attention to another thing in connection with this very claim. 
The forest officers had sold a large part of the dead timber off that 
claim. They made the sale under the rules of the department which 
provides that if a man stayed right on the property and watched it, 
all right, but if he went away they would take the timber and sell it. 
That is in there ; and you know, every one of you who knows anything 
about mining, that those prospectors, most of them, haven't much 
means. During large portions of the year they are compelled to go 
away and work somewhere for a "grubstake." That is exactly the 
case of this man, and had it not been for friends putting up the 
money to pay expenses, Slitka would have lost the claim within 
thirty days, because he had not the means to comply with the 
requirements of the notice from the land office. If a man stays and 
watches his claim continuously, the officers are instructed not to 
touch the timber. The forest officers are instructed, when they find 
a claim unoccupied, to sell the dead timber from it, and it is so pro- 
vided in their rules. Is that encouraging mining and prospecting ? 

Another case : Down in the land office at Del Norte, in the San 
Luis Valley, a company filed on some placer land, 60 or 80 acres, and 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

when the claimants went to prove up on it they found a protest made 
by the forest officers. A hearing- was had. Who were the witnesses ? 
Two rangers, as witnesses, and the supervisor conducted the examina- 
tion. When the attorneys for the company attempted to cross- 
examine those witnesses the supervisor instructed that they could 
refuse to answer the questions, and the rangers refused to be cross- 
examined. After the hearing was over the land office decided in 
favor of the claimant. Then the papers went to Washington for 
patent. And what do you suppose happened ? At the time that 
land was located as a placer claim there was no reservation there. 
If those people had wanted that land for timber or stone they could 
have taken it up without any trouble under the timber and stone act, 
and paid for it at $2.50 an acre. But they wanted it for mineral. In 
Washington the Forest Service again interfered and presented 
enough influence to the Commissioner of the Land Office to cause 
the patent to be refused. That is what happened. Those claimants 
had to hire an attorney; had to go to Washington and ask for a 
rehearing. They finally got it, the decision was reversed, and they 
got title to their land. 

But, my friends, there is another side to this. These proceedings 
cost them over $7,000. Is that encouraging mining in Colorado? I 
could tell you of a case in Gunnison that cost $350, and a case in 
Gilpin County called to my attention, among others, but I am not 
going to give any more instances. 

I want to call your attention a little further to what this system 
provides for. Away back when this Forest Service was transferred 
from the Interior Department to the Agricultural Department there 
was, at the request of the President, I believe, according to public 
reports, a "treaty agreed upon" between these departments as to 
the handling of these public lands. It was, in fact, a treaty. There 
were three things in that treaty that I will have read to you. I want 
you to recall all the time what Mr. Pinchot said here to-night, and 
what he said in that letter he signed, read by Mr. Eddy. I will now 
ask that three articles in that treaty be read. 

First. The refusal by the General Land Office to issue final certificate or allow final 
entry for any land claim within the forest reservations against which a forest officer 
has protested" until a full hearing before the local land office. 

Second. Definite notice to be given by the General Land Office and by the Forest 
Service of complainants' intention to make final proof. 

Third. The acceptance of the Forest Service finding of facts concerning the land 
claimed within the forest reservation. 

My friends, that means all kinds of claims. It is plain enough. 
Whenever any person makes application to prove up on his mining 
claim or his homestead or desert entry, what happens ? The Forest 
Service makes an examination, and if it likes files a protest. Then a 
hearing must be had. The claimant must go to that hearing and 
present his case. At that hearing the General Land Office must 
accept the finding of fact presented by the forest officers. The 
claimant is put to an enormous expense and is at the mercy of the 
Forest Service. Is that not interfering with prospecting ? Can any 
reasonable person imagine that you could discourage it more ? Every 
mining man in Denver knows that the service sends out a ranger to 
examine mining locations. They pretend to tell you whether it will 
pay or not, whether there is mineral or not. What miniug expert 
is there who can say certainly what is beneath that ground? How 



6 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

many districts of Colorado have been dug over and over again in 
which years afterwards somebody comes along and finds the treasure 
which others thought was there, but were not able to find for them- 
selves ? How many localities have there been passed upon by the 
wisest experts we have out here, and passed upon adversely, upon 
which afterwards paying mineral has been found ? There are not 
always well-defined veins in sight, and you know a great deal of this 
prospecting is done because they can not locate the vein. They know 
from the float that it is there and they run drifts, but no prospector 
can know exactly where it is. What happens under this administra- 
tion in a case of this kind ? The claimants are turned down because 
they can show no well-defined vein. 

I want to call attention to just one more thing, and that is that by 
the terms of this treaty the Interior Department, which issues the 
patent, accepts the finding of facts as reported by the Forest Service, 
whether it is by an expert or not. They accept it and agree to it. 
They have a sort of treaty between them, and this treaty, this agree- 
ment, was made, I believe at the request of the President of the 
United States, and it stands as a fact to-day, and the rules are in 
accordance with it. I intended to read some of these rules, but I shall 
not take the time, because they are in absolute accord and the prac- 
tice is in accord with both the treaty and the rules. 

I now want to take up just for a moment another question; that 
is as to timber sales. How is the timber sold ? We are told by some 
of these books that the timber is going to be sold to the people at a 
reasonable price. As a matter of fact, how is it sold ? Why, to the 
highest bitlder. No one can deny that statement, because that is 
the practice in this State at least. They ask for bids, and it is sole 
to the highest bidder where there is any considerable quantity of it. 
Now, my friends, suppose, while we are trying to keep down monop 
oly, a certain tract of timber is to be sold, and the lumber trust, if you 

f)lease, wants it because it may come into competition with its own 
umber. What does it do ? Bids for it high enough and gets it, and 
adds the price to the consumer, and you know that is practically a 
fact. A good deal is made out of the plea that the little fellow, thes 
homeseekers, get all of the timber they want. I took some figure 
from Mr. Pinehot's report and last year they averaged to these people 
$5.49 worth apiece. Yet, my friends, the service insists that we wLC 
have to make a further limit on this distribution. Before these reser- 
vations were established the people were permitted to have whatever 
they needed; they were permitted without let or hindrance. Don't 
forget that. 

Now, about rights of way for ditches. I may not be able to read 
the English language correctly, but I have studied these rules pretty 
carefully, and I find that if some of you gentlemen combine, go over 
on the western slope, and build a ditch that you are held as specu- 
lators, and must, under one pretext or another, pay for the right of 
way. Getting water out of these canyons is exceedingly difficult. 
The price charged for right of way must be added to the cost of the 
water used by the homeseeker who wants to make a home. What 
is the difference whether the homesteader builds that ditch himself 
or whether there shall be a union of effort ? I want to tell you the 
very reason the reclamation fund has been established is because in 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 7 

so many instances the settlers could not come together and raise the 
money to build ditches. 

I want to call your attention to a little red book sent all over this 
country. It is called "The Use of the National Forests." It reminds 
us how many ways there are in which the public land may be located 
before it gets into the forest reserves. It is an official document 
sent out by this Forest Service. You have been told by Mr. Pinchot 
to-night that what they want to do is to encourage the settlement 
of this country. 

Referring to the public lands this book says: " Under whatever law 
it is taken up, it passes with all of its resources out of the hands of 
the people forever." Does that look as though they wanted this land 
to come into the hands of the homesteader? What is the best way to 
get these lands into the hands of the people ? How about the land 
upon which this building stands ? How about these buildings sur- 
rounding it? How about the magnificent city? These lands have 
all been taken up under some sort of a law. When you get on the 
east side of Broadway I believe it was taken up under the homestead 
or preemption law and was not at that time considered very valuable 
even for farming or pasturage. According to Mr. Pinchot's book, 
these lands right here on Sherman avenue, when they passed out of 
the ownership of the Government, went out of the hands of the people 
forever. Do you believe that? Go out into the farming districts 
^ where beautiful homes have been built and ditches constructed. 
jj Have the lands gone out of the hands of the people or gone into the 
5 hands of the people? Tell me that. Which would you rather have, 
JQ the landlord system over these lands around the city or have them in 
J the hands of the owners, the owners living upon them and making 
•£ them their homes ? 

In this same book, and you heard it reiterated to-night, the Forester 
says they make no charge for water. Indeed, in the book they go a 
little further. They say they do not charge for water, but they charge 
for the conservation of the water. Now, I look over in this same 
little book and I find the definition of that word "conservation." It's 
Mr. Pinchot's definition and therefore somewhat official. What do 
^you suppose it is? It says it is "the wise use of." Now, therefore, 
■ my friends, they don't charge for the water; they charge for the wise 
JJuse of it. And I have quoted exactly from that book. 

Let us note another matter. When they charge for the conserva- 
tion of water for power purposes, how do they measure that conser- 
vation? Easy. By the total amount of water used. These rivers 
and creeks have been flowing down these hills longer than Mr. Pinchot 
and I have been alive. I have been looking at them for thirty-five 
years. I defy any human being to say whether there has been any 
permanent difference in the amount of the flow in that time. But 
they are not content with making "a conservation" charge for the 
whole amount of water used. Mr. Pinchot also wants to make us pay 
for the "fall furnished." Furnished by whom? God Almighty set 
these mountains on edge so the water would run down hill and furnish 
power. 



8 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

They say they don't charge for irrigation water; they charge for 
its conservation. I will ask Mr. Eddy to read something to show 
they intend to charge for the water itself: 

First. That the forest reserves are for the use of the people and no privileges will be 
denied unless they exercise a material interference with the reserve interests, or 
threaten harm to the public. 

Second. That a reasonable charge may be made for all such uses whenever the per- 
mit involves the withdrawal of the particular resources of the land from the use by 
the people in general. The charge, however, may probably be remitted in the follow- 
ing cases: When the use granted will result in direct benefit to the forest reserves or its 
administration, as for telephone lines, wagon roads, trails, etc. When the use is by 
any other branch of the Government, district, State, county, municipality, or by 

{>rivate individuals or associations of persons, for the use of water to develop their own 
and. 

You see that the charge "may probably" be remitted in certain 
instances. "May probably" is a good expression, and I will tell you 
that we have had this "may probably" put in these rules ever since 
the very first one was promulgated. That "may probably" be 
changed to-morrow, to-day, next week, or any other time, and then it 
may be stricken out. But the fact remains they intend to charge 
for water for irrigation wherever an excuse can be found. 

A few days ago one distinguished Senator of the United States, in 
supporting this Forest Service, capitalized these great resources 
which the Government might get something out of. The supporters 
of this service had been preparing these figures to use in an endeavor 
to increase the appropriation for the Forest Service, and they promise 
an income from water for power purposes alone of $30,000,000 a year. 
That would be a magnificent income, but who is to pay it ? The con- 
sumer. It will have to be settled for by the people who use light and 
heat and power, and is therefore an unwarranted, unjustifiable burden 
upon every home and industry in the State. How can we build very 
fast under that retarding influence ? 

My friends, they are capitalizing the value of the water for irriga- 
tion. According to these same figures, those of you who are using 
irrigating water would be paying to the Gerenal Government an 
annual rental of $8,300,000. Is that encouraging irrigation of these 
arid lands ? 

Let me mention something else. We need rights of way. These 
reserves are scattered over this State, covering something like 25 
per cent of it according to the figures of the Forest Bureau. A large 
proportion of irrigating ditches, power plants, and railroads must 
cross some portion of the reserves. When we want a right of way for 
an irrigating ditch which touches one of these reserves, we are en- 
tirely at the mercy of the Forest Service. Some time ago a certain 
corporation asked for a right of way for a railroad. This right of way 
would require about 8 acres of a forest reservation. Land of the 
same character in that locality was recently sold at 47 cents an acre. 
There was not much timber and not a very great crop of grass growing 
on the land. The company finally succeeded in getting a special 
permit to allow it to go over that reservation at an annual rental of 
$3 an acre and the service charged for 15 acres. Do you think such a 
course is helping things along ? Then, after thousands of dollars had 
been spent to build this road, the permit only ran for one year, and if 
at the end of the year the company had not completed the work it 
was liable to have to abandon the enterprise. This is the kind of 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 9 

right of way given by this Forest Service which is so overanxious to 
develop the country. 

And there is something else. They have another agreement in 
this so-called treaty, whereby no right of way ran be granted by the 
Interior Department until a bond is given that satisfies this Forest 
Service. The treaty does not say it shall be a reasonable bond. If 
private lands were involved only a reasonable bond could be required. 
Otherwise, the courts would make the terms equitable. If a bond 
applies to a right of way in the dominion of the Forest Service, you 
can not protect yourself, but must do whatever is required of you. 

How is this Forest Service organized, anyhow ? We have in this 
country a system of government composed of three coordinate 
branches. We, the people, are supposed to control it. We elect 
our legislators. They come here or go to Congress and announce 
our policies. Nobody else has a right to announce a policy for us. 
The law is our policy, and we make it through these people we elect. 
If there is a question about the meaning of this policy, we choose 
courts to interpret it, and then as announced and interpreted we 
elect ministerial agents, an executive department, if you please, to 
carry it into effect. That principle runs through all of our institu- 
tions, and everybody knows it. How about this service? This 
forest-reserve territory is not a small experiment station. It is not 
a little cattle ranch. I heard Mr. Pinchot say one time he thought 
it was a pretty big cattle ranch. He realizes it is; he appreciates it; 
he is trying to make the most of it. It is not a mere cattle ranch. 
It is a vast territory, bigger than Germany, bigger than France, 
once and a half times as large as Italy, equal in size to twelve and a 
half States of this Union, and in Colorado alone there is sufficient to 
cover four and one-half of the original States. 

„ They tell us themselves in the estimates they publish that it has 
boundless resources not yet developed and capable of supporting mil- 
lions of people. Therefore, the control of this territory is govern- 
mental in its functions ; any plan of government that is put over the 
people within it should be in accord with the other institutions of 
this Union, and I challenge anyone to deny that principle. The 
system of government placed over the forest reserves is in direct 
opposition to this principle. 

Mr. Pinchot makes his own laws, construes them, and executes 
them. He is the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. Mr. 
Pinchot claims to have statutory permission for his system. The 
claim is farfetched. But whether Mr. Pinchot has statutory law 
for what he does or not, the system is wrong and contrary to our 
fundamental law, and I believe will so be proven when tested in the 
Supreme Court. The question is whether the system is right. If 
not, it should be changed. If he thinks Congress would approve 
laws such as these rules and regulations I want to ask him right now 
whether he is willing to go to Congress and ask to have his rules 
made into law before lie enforces them. What the people want is 
law affecting all alike and not rules and regulations made and enforced 
at the discretion of one man, whosoever he may be or howsoever good 
he may be. 

This system has been organized under several laws, and the prin- 
cipal one of them is this: That the Secretary of Agriculture— rwhich 
means the Forest Service — shall make the rules and regulations for 



10 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

the use and occupancy of these reserves. That is a broad statement 
and there is no doubt that he can go a long way in that ''use and occu- 
pancy of these reserves." He is hampered by just a few things. 
The law says we can have mining claims, and he makes us a lot of 
difficulty in getting them. Possibly with the consent of the Secretary 
of Agriculture, somebody can get a homestead, but outside of this I 
know of no limitation. He has prepared several acts that have been 
passed, among which is the power to arrest people for violation of 
these rules and regulations. At first I did not think there could be 
such a law, but I find there is. It provides that persons permitting 
their cattle to trespass in violation of the rules shall be subject to 
arrest, fine, and imprisonment. Mr. Pinchot claims to have entire 
jurisdiction over this reserve territory. He has taken this claim to 
the court of appeals in the Shannon case, and has obtained a decision 
that declares the jurisdiction of the State ceases at the border of the 
government land. Therefore he has absolute control over these 
reserves. He is in fact a very sovereign. He can say who goes there 
and who stays out. He can say whether my cattle can be grazed there 
or whether they can not. He can say whether I can do business there 
or whether I can not. I want to tell you you can not help yourself. 
These are the powers he has, and he makes the laws for the regulation 
of these reserves. Do you think these things are in accordance with 
the institutions of this American country? 

In case of a dispute coming up, as to these rules and regulations, 
who is the court that determines and interprets them ? This depart- 
ment itself. It is the legislator, the court, and the executive. It 
has all these three powers in its hands. What is the practical effect 
of this ? Let us look at it a little bit. I have taken the advice of 
some very good attorneys. If the forester's contention is correct, 
that the jurisdiction of Colorado, for instance, ceases at the border 
of the government land, what becomes of your legislative power over 
these reserves ? Indeed, the service denies your right to pass laws 
covering this territory contrary to its own rules and regulations. 

The people of the Forest Service say they want to encourage the 
homeseeker. You heard Mr. Pinchot say that to-night. How are 
they doing it? The only thing they have left the settler is a very 
limited homestead right and even that is granted only at the pleasure 
of the service. There is much land included in these reserves that 
should be opened to entry under the desert-land law, but the benefits 
of this act are wholly denied within the boundaries of the reservations. 
Even grazing lands can be located as other agricultural lands outside 
the reserves. They can not be homes teaded inside the reservations. 
In fact everything, except the limited homestead and even more 
limited mineral entry, must be conducted under a system of govern- 
mental landlordism. A man can go into almost any kind of business 
if he pays the price, but when he does becomes a tenant. He does 
not and can not own his own home. Suppose you want to start in 
business there and get a special permit and build a building. Sup- 
pose you want to start a power plant. The Forest Service advertises 
among others some forty-one different lines of business that you can 
go into in these reserves under a special permit, but the title to the 
land remains in the Government. 

Under the decision in the Shannon case, the State's jurisdiction 
does not extend over these reserve lands. Granted for the sake of 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 11 

argument that this position is correct, that the jurisdiction of the 
State does not go further than the boundaries of the government land, 
you have got a system of tenantry there. Is that the way to build 
American homes, under a system of landlordism, governmental land- 
lordism at that ? These tenants living on reserve lands can not even 
vote, because they are outside the jurisdiction of the State. I have 
had decision after decision hunted down to prove that. 

Suppose improvements are made on these reserve lands. Do they 
pay taxes? Not on your life. Not a dollar to the State or counties 
in which they lie; because it is outside of the jurisdiction of this State. 
Has the State any interest in this policy ? Look at it a moment and 
see how it is going to affect you. You have no control over it what- 
ever. They say they return 25 per cent of what they collect. By 
what right do they fix the amount of taxes in Colorado ? Will you 
tell me ? They may have a legal right, but by what moral right do 
they limit what they return to us ? They say for two special pur- 
poses; schools and roads. They knew these things would catch the 
people. These are popular. Why, my friend Mr. Pinchot can appre- 
ciate that. He has had that in mind these many years. Why didn't 
they favor general taxation ? There is something else these counties 
have to do besides building roads and supporting schools. They have 
to provide for protection of life; they have to furnish protection to 
the rangers and other forest officers. They must provide 1 protection 
of property, and there is the foundation of all taxes. But they don't 
help in that they don't contribute a penny toward protection; but 
pick out these two things that are catchy. 

In the return of this "conscience" fund they limit the amount 
given to 40 per cent of the tax collected by the county. Suppose 60 
per cent of any particular county is in the reserve — and I know of a 
county not far from here of which more than 60 per cent is in the 
reserve — why should not they put the same amount in that county ? 
They should ; but they don't do it. I might go into this and point out 
a great many other things in this direction. 

Let us see how this system works as to individuals. In any forest 
reserveyou may please the people who are living there — doing business 
there — are depending upon government property. A man may own 
his homestead, but he can not live there alone. In most mountainous 
districts he must depend upon the pastures outside. In order to get 
pasturage he must look to the Forest Service. If there is a dispute 
as to that pasturage, how does he settle it ? Mr. Pinchot says come 
to him and get a settlement. If I am doing business in the reserves, 
I know the friendship of the local officers is necessary to my well-being. 
I certainly have to have that, because he has the power to recommend 
against me or for me. I know in many ways he could do me little 
favors, or he could do me an injustice. I therefore must toady to 
him. This is human nature. That is something that will exist, 
whether Mr. Pinchot wants it or not. It is controlled by a law as old 
as the human race. That man is at the mercy of these fellows, and 
he does not dare get into a* dispute. How can his cattle be taken 
care of? He must keep them there at the recommendation of these 
men even if he must drive them from one creek to another until their 
feet wear off. I know something about this; I have spent most of 
my life at it. I don't believe very many men gather their cattle for 



12 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

counting very often. They are held in a bunch and counted out 
when sold. It costs a dollar a head to gather them and count them. 
Now suppose, as has happened, some ranger does not like some one 
and orders his cattle to be gathered and counted in March. Suppose 
it were this March, with cattle in bad condition. The loss would be 
not less than 25 per cent. It might break the owner and cost him 
the savings of a lifetime. These are the conditions that exist. 

Suppose the stockman does take Mr. Pinchot at his word and 
appeals to him. If he can get some influential friend to intercede for 
him, he would probably get that fixed up. What happens ? He has 
incurred the everlasting enmity of the ranger, and there are thousands 
of ways in which that fellow can follow him to his ruin. I am not 
citing an isolated case. I want to tell you that there has grown up in 
the business out on these little ranges a most vicious system of con- 
trol, and most of the small stock owners to-day are living in terrorism. 
Their souls are not their own; their American manhood is subdued; 
there is ringing in their very souls a hatred of this Government. 

Why, my friends, they say that these grazing lands belong to all the 
people of this Government. Since the first settler came upon the 
Atlantic coast there has been this frontier, and it has been opened up 
by the hardy pioneer who went out a little distance at a time, each one 
a little bit farther, to graze his cattle. The sister States back East, 
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, all of these other States have had 
their privilege. It never cost them anything. It was an inducement 
held out by the Government for the settler to come out V» r est and 
occupy these lands and build him a home. He did not find a home 
there. He did not find afence. He went where, asl havehad personal 
experience, there was no acre plowed, no foundation laid for a house, 
where the cabins had to be built, and the land had to be plowed and 
broken, and the crops had to be fenced and raised, and the only induce- 
ment offered him was this little pittance of free range for the few head 
of stock he had. These States have all enjoyed this privilege. The 
fact that they have ought to appeal to them. Some of these people 
are before Congress appealing for more funds for this service, and now 
these same people are coming out here, where the agricultural diffi- 
culties are much greater than back East, where we must dig canals 
and build reservoirs to irrigate the land, and say to us, "You must 
pay for this privilege which we had for nothing." And you will pay 
for it forever if this Forest Service has its way. 

They say they are going to take this land and hold it permanently 
to be handed down to some unknown generation. I want to say to 
you, my friends, that there is no justice in that policy whether they 
have permission of law or not. They say they charge a sum only 
sufficient for administration of the grazing lands. I want to tell you 
there is not enough grass in any one neighborhood, if you took every 
dollar of the profits, to pay the salary of one supervisor, and I will 
stand by the truth of this statement. 

Let us see how this effects the State. I have called your attention 
to the fact that they have withdrawn the lands and resources from 
taxation. In Colorado taxation is based mainly upon land. Under 
the decision in the Shannon case the Government has the jurisdiction. 
Why? Because it owns the land. Let us see where that will lead 
us, my friends. They have now between 23 and 24 per cent of Colo- 
rado in the forest reserves; therefore our jurisdiction is gone from 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 13 

that portion. Another 25 per cent of the area is composed of govern- 
ment lands which they are trying to get under the same control by 
the terms of the Curtis-Scott bill. This makes 50 per cent that is 
taken from the dominion of the State. Suppose the Government 
buys 25 per cent more. Then our jurisdiction is reduced to 25 per 
cent. Then suppose they step in and buy the other 25 per cent. 
What, then, becomes of the legislature and the state government? 
If the argument is any good in one case, it is good in the other. I 
deny that it is good law. I want to say that if there ever was a mis- 
taken decision handed down by any court in America, it was the 
decision in the Shannon case. Yet the district courts do not want to 
reverse it; they do not want to go into it. They refuse to go into it; 
they will not attempt to reverse the higher courts. The greatest duty 
you gentlemen of the legislature have to perform is to take this matter 
to the Supreme Court of the United States and find out what your 
rights as a State are. 

Let me call your attention to something that is exceedingly im- 
portant. Suppose some fellow commits a trespass. That is, sup- 
pose his cattle wander on some unfenced reserve. The forest officer 
puts in a claim for damages, say, $4.50. The stockman disputes 
the justice of the claim and refuses to pay it. What does the Forest 
Service do ? Brings suit. For how much ? I don't know how 
much. In one case they brought suit for $1,000 on a claim of $4.50. 
Can the ranchman fight the Government ? What will it cost him ? 
Well, I don't know what it might cost him. Let me tell you some- 
thing. I went over to Glenwood Springs and heard the testimony 
taken for the defense in the Light case. It cost $350 to the stock- 
men taking testimony one day. The Government then put in its 
testimony here, and a good many of those interested had to come to 
Denver. This $4.50 suit was brought against a pretty well-to-do 
stockman, and yet he was not financially able to fight it. The ex- 
pense would be so great that even if he should finally win it it would 
cost him all he had. He was, therefore, compelled to settle it on 
terms dictated by the service. Now, let me tell you that that thing 
will happen right along until the people of the country understand. 
Do you believe that is according to American institutions ? How 
does that conserve the forests of this great State — that sort of 
terrorism ? 

Suppose the ranger has an enemy. Suppose he has a friend. 
Suppose the interests of these two people conflict. The ranger is not 
going to do that friend an injustice, that is one thing sure, and the 
enemy knows it. If there are any favors to bestow, who will get 
them, the enemy or the friend ? The man who boosts for the service 
is taken care of and the one who does not is made to feel the iron hand. 
Then there is trouble and heartache and bitterness, with no power 
to command justice. 

Trouble has grown up under this system. Nothing could prevent 
it. There always has been favoritism and terrorism where this 
system of arbitrary discretionary power was in control and over- 
riding the law. Mr. Pinchot can not help that condition, no matter 
how hard he may try. It is inherent in the system. What does he 
do if a complaint is made ? He refers it to his force, and they report 
to him. These rangers are loyal to him, and he has told you here 
to-night that he is loyal to the men in the service. Who has the 



14 FOEEST RESERVATIONS. 

advantage, therefore, the citizen who complains or the loyal ranger? 
Why, my friends, this ranger down at Del Norte was promoted to be 
supervisor because possibly he refused to be cross-examined in that 
mining case. The men in the service have the ear of the department 
all the time, and the poor devil over on the western slope can not even 
come to Denver, for ordinarily he can not afford the expense. When 
he does come here he doesn't know anybody, and perhaps the other 
fellow has more friends here and more influence. Do you suppose 
such a system is going to insure good government ? After all is said 
and done, by what system of moral right should we turn over to any 
human being or to any bureau of this Government, discretionary, 
arbitrary power over our territory or any of its people ? 

Tell me something else. Why is it necessary to go into all these 
lines of business in order to protect the forests ? Why is it necessary 
to include in the reserves the land above timber line, where no timber 
can ever be made to grow, except for the purposes of the revenue 
that they are going to get out of it ? Why should they permit the 
people as tenants on this land to go into the 41 lines of business that 
they mention, except that the men in the service may get the revenue ? 
Are these forests not valuable enough to repay the Government for 
their administration? If not, let it turn them over to the State of 
Colorado to-morrow, and I will guarantee that they will be admin- 
istered as well as now, and protected as well from fire, and no other 
line of business will be taxed in order to support them. 

They say they want a grazing tax to help out these forests. 

Why should they compel the cattlemen to pay tribute to this 
proposition any more than the banker, the grocer, or any other 
human being in this State ? Tell me that. I want a good reason 
for it. Their cattle have done no harm to these forests. I want to 
tell you that these are pipe dreams that they have been sending out 
through the magazines of this country. I have had more experience 
in this timbered country than any man in the service that I know 
anything about. I have yet to see the first pine or spruce tree ruined 
by cattle. The more the ground is tramped the more the trees are 
likely to grow. If Mr. Pinchot will go with me on the old road 
between here and Floyd Hill, where that road went when I was a 
boy, and where it has been changed now from one place to another, 
I will show him where the old roadbed has grown thick with pines 
with not a bush a foot beyond the wagon tracks on either side. As 
a matter of fact, the people in the Forest Service do not know, and 
no one knows, under what conditions timber will grow best in these 
mountains. I have studied this subject from a practical standpoint; 
Mr. Pinchot has observed it from a theoretical standpoint. I don't 
claim to know, and I know of no one else that does know, what is 
the best way to grow timber in this State. Why is it necessary to 
bring un-American institutions into this country to protect and grow 
forests ? Can't we grow trees under our own form of government ? 

Mr. Pinchot says he is going to prevent monopoly. How ? By 
charging a royalty on every resource we have ? What has a royalty 
charge to do with monopoly, anyhow ? Why hasn't it occurred to 
this wonderfully wise Forest Service to find some way of preventing 
monopoly without increasing the price of everything we use to the 
consumer? As a matter of fact. Mr. Pinchot proposes that the Gov- 
ernment change its time-honored policy and go into business for 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. 15 

revenue, not only in timber growing and Lumbering, but in every 
possible line, including farming and pleasure resorts, capable of being 
oarried on in the forest reserves, and that, too, on untaxed property in 
competition with our citizens, who must bear the brunt of taxation 
to build and support our growing and needed institutions. Suppose 
you own land, upon which you have built improvements, adjacent 
to a forest reserve. The land has cost you something; you had to 
build barns and fences and other improvements. You must pay 
taxes on both your land and what you have put upon it. Just across 
the line in the reserve the Government, directly or as a landlord, is 
doing business in competition with you; but it pays no taxes, and 
even compels you to fence your cattle from off its land. 

My friends, they are putting permanent improvements on this land 
as fast as they can. In one reserve I know of they built a beautiful 
cabin last summer and built a big bridge to get to it, so that they 
would have a scenic spot of ground. They are doing all of these 
things. They have put $5,000,000 worth of such improvements on 
these reservations, and what they pay for it all must come out of the 
resources and the industries of the West. 

They admit many things are wrong, and Mr. Pinchot tells us he is 
here to fix them up. He says he has come to right wrongs. By what 
right does he come to Colorado to right wrongs? Who gave him 
authority to fix these laws so that you and I can not go into the courts 
of the land and defend ourselves against oppression '( 

I have just been looking over the report of the Forester. I find 
that 78 per cent of the cost of maintenance is for the employees in 
carrying on business enterprises in the reservations. Therefore only 
22 per cent is for the protection of the forests. And this business is 
going to increase just as fast as they can get means to carry it on. 
Why should they not confine their efforts to forest protection ( They 
say they haven't time; that they haven't men enough. Let me call 
your attention to something they are doing in this country. They 
send out people under pay to lecture on the Forest Service. They lec- 
ture to women's clubs, for instance. I see one man turned in a bill 
for $10.25 for a lecture; another for $10. Why wasn't that amount 
paid for patrolling the forests instead of paying for lectures ? 

I went out to California to the cattlemen's convention, and went 
with the Colorado delegation before the resolutions committee. A 
large number of gentlemen, very wealthy gentlemen, in the cattle 
business, were there. I was informed there were two or three men 
representing the Forest Service in consultation with the resolutions 
committee. One of them I knew. He is one of Mr. Pinchot 's chief 
lieutenants. He referred to the Light case. He was explaining to 
that committee that the reason that this case was postponed and was 
not brought up as it ought to have been was that Mr. Light had got 
cold feet. Now, my friends, I had to call upon Mr. McGrillis, whose 
son tried the case, and who was familiar with it, to prove to the com- 
mittee that the reason that case was held up was an attempt by the 
Forest Service to make the defense agree to the statement of facts 
which would have put us out of court to begin with. It was a long 
time before we could get a modification, and in the end the Forest 
Service did not keep its agreement, but insisted upon a form of 
complaint which did not state the truth and which cost us a lot of 
useless expenditure. After the convention this same distinguished 



16 FOEEST RESERVATIONS. 

lieutenant of the Forest Service, who was out at the city of Los 
Angeles protecting the forests from fires and other depredations, 
wrote an article belittling everybody who had anything to say to 
thwart their plans regarding the public lands. I believe this is the 
same gentleman who had some time before written another article 
to a leading periodical in which he lauded himself as a disinterested 
party who had started out in opposition to the service, but had 
changed his mind. He had now come to believe it was a great thing. 
I looked him up and found that, curiously enough, his conversion had 
come at the very time at which he went on the pay roll of the Forest 
Service. 

Indeed, a large portion of this force of foresters is used in conduct- 
ing a press agency. They are publishing articles all over the country, 
telling what a great work they are doing here and encouraging it. 
They became so enthusiastic over it that they forgot what the facts 
really were, and to those of us who have lived in these reserves and 
have seen some of these remarkable results they are talking about, it 
becomes very funny indeed. 

They talk about improvement of the ranges. Right in sight of this 
capitol, and within 20 miles of this capitol, there is one of the oldest 
reservations in the State. Anyone who has known this range before 
and since the reserve was established will tell you it is worse to-day 
than it was before the Forest Service assumed control. They talk 
about cattle being heavier in the reserves. In one way that is true, 
for they have gobbled up all the best cattle ranges I know anything 
about. As to whether or not they have improved live-stock con- 
ditions we need not go far to find out. Look at this reservation right 
here in sight of us. I think I have weighed nearly as many cattle 
from that reservation as has an} T man who has lived within it. The 
3-year-old steers from this range before the reserve was established 
weighed 1,100 pounds on the average, and the dry cows sold for beef 
went from 1,050 to 1,100 pounds. Of course some years they would 
go a little higher. And now these cattle are coming to the same 
market and the 3-year-old steers are averaging 850 pounds and the 
dry cows 825 to 850 pounds. And I can call to my witness in this 
very audience a number of as good citizens as are in this State to 
substantiate that fact. Mr. Pinchot's press agents are publishing 
laudatory statements which are not true, and they are doing so on 
the authority of people out here who want special privileges and who 
are toadying to this bureau, helping them to establish themselves here 
in the hope of "standing in" and getting advantages. 

What can we do to head off this sentiment ? In their figures they 
give a monthly circulation of 9,800,000 copies of publications on 
which this stuff is being printed. Down in Congress they call us 
"looters" now; they say that every man who took up timber, who 
built a miner's cabin, who built his homestead house — even he who 
took up the homestead itself — is a looter of public property. I never 
was so aggrieved in my life as at some remarks made in Congress. 
Is that the way to preserve these forests ? 

Let me suggest a way to preserve them. Let me tell Mr. Pinchot 
how to have a forest system that will remove every particle of opposi- 
tion in this country to his administration. Let him confine his 
efforts and the efforts of his Forestry Bureau to forestry. Let him 
get it out of his mind that all good is centered in him, that he is a 



FOREST RESERVATIONS. ■ 17 

sovereign of every natural resource in the West, and of every industry 
of our people. If he will take what is necessary of his force of 
employees and go into the protection of the forests and the growth of 
the forests, we will all be with him, and he will have the cooperation 
of this State, and there will be no opposition. If he is going to grow 
forests, let him grow them where they will grow. Let us have a 
system of forestry in this country that will extend all over it. He has 
no right to milk the West for the benefit of the East. 

Do you know that the other day, down in the House of Repre- 
sentatives at Washington, a bill passed 157 to 147, by which $2,000,000 
a vear are to be taken out of the proceeds in these reservations? 
What for ? To buy forest reserves in the East. Did you know that ? 
Is that fair? They propose something else. The friends of this 
service down there proposed an amendment to the agricultural bill 
for this purpose. The amendment provided that owners of private 
'ands in the reservations might exchange, mind you, might exchange 
the lands to the Government for stumpage. In other words, that the 
Government was going to trade this timber for land in order to get 
jurisdiction over more territory. Fortunately, it was knocked out on 
a point of order. The same people who supported this amendment 
were the ones who supported the general policy of the Forest Service. 
They were going to preserve the timber by trading it for land. You 
see that this State has a great interest in this. It wants to raise trees. 

The Government ought to conduct an experiment station up here at 
the agricultural college. I will assure the gentleman the State will 
cooperate with him. I am on the board of control, and we will find 
out what are the best trees in Colorado so the citizens can grow them 
at a profit and for the benefit of the people. The State will join us. 

Now, then, my friends, this Forest Service has not to exceed one- 
fifth of the timber in the country ; the balance is in private holdings. 
Up here in our own State no valuable timber grows on the head- 
waters of these streams. It takes from two to five hundred years to 
grow a tree of any value. Have you ever known of any hard wood, 
anything that would polish, and finishing w T ood, to grow at this 
altitude? In California, I saw a tree just 5 years and 4 months old 
81 feet high. It was 10i inches in diameter at the butt. They told 
me that that sort of timber, eucalyptus, had grown as high as 43,000 
feet of lumber to the acre in ten years. There are places where you 
can grow more timber on an acre there than you can grow on a town- 
ship in the mountains here in the same time. Why not find trees in 
other similar climates that will do better here than any of the natives ? 
When the Forest Service shall engage in that sort of work, it will be 
acting within its legitimate function and we will join in the work. 
But whenever the Forest Service attempts to establish a tenantry 
system and a system of governmental landlordism, when it tells us 
the Government will keep these lands permanently, withdrawing 
them from taxation, then the State must continue to fight it in the 
courts. 

My objections to the rule of the Forest Service are fundamental. 
Its system of government is wrong. Pretending to have the sanction 
of law, it violates the most vital constitutional principles upon which 
our institutions are founded. It makes its own law T s, changes them 
at will, construes them to suit its own pleasure, and enforces them or 
S. Doc. 650—61-2 2 



18 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 

not as the exigencies of self interest may demand. Under it friends 
may be favored or enemies punished, servility rewarded or independ- 
ent manhood discouraged. It assumes to itself a righteousness of 
purpose which the trend of its performance does not prove. Its rules 
are special laws and its continued existence must be purchased at the 
cost of unpardonable favoritism. Its attempts to reestablish a sys- 
tem of government by individuals and not by law. It denies the 
Erinciple of equality before the law. Through an influenced press 
ureau its mam energies are spent in praise of acts it does not per- 
form. Authorized by Congress to grow and protect forests, it has 
taken millions of acres of mineral and agricultural lands into its 
dominions, and has gone into every conceivable line of business under 
a most objectionable system of governmental landlordism. It has 
been a willing tool in the hands of the Lumber trust by which the 
price of lumber has been more than doubled to the consumer. Pro- 
fessing to favor the saving of coal it obstructs the building of hydraulic 
plants for generating cheaper power and light. It seeks to withhold 
large portions of our territory from taxation by the State and to 
impose burdens from royalties upon the development of our resources. 
Its blighting influence has interfered unreasonably with prospecting 
and seriously checked the growth of the mining industry. It has 
locked the doors against settlement and driven the home seeker to 
other countries. By preventing the construction of power plants it 
denies us proffered reductions in the price of heat, light, and power. 
It feeds upon our industries, thwarts our development, and hinders 
our growth. It is an unnecessary, unprofitable burden. It is an 
unwelcome importation, and makes a miserable misfit amongst our 
free American institutions. 

o 



^^nn^n 



LJBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0000^535137 



